“Most of the squad will still be here next year” - NP

[Roger Red Hat]

36 minutes ago, Slippin cider said:

Makes me wonder exactly what’s going on with him …NP says very little about him and he’s nowhere near the first team and on a pretty decent wage I should imagine.

Will he ever play for us again ?

Can't see that happening.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, cityfan1958 said:

First, the comment is just managing expectations of wholesale changes this summer.

I see Palmer as the most important move. Having him hanging around and not playing, whilst on top money is a constant distraction from the job in hand. I don’t know what he is like as a person ie. Is football just a job, or does he have a real passion for playing the game.

If it’s the former he could just see out his contract, or wait and see if there is a change of manager who might play him. He might also be thinking that in another 12 months football finances will improve and he will get a better contract than moving now. The down side is he wasn’t pulling up any trees last season, has not played this, and there is no expectation of him playing next season. If he waits out his contract finding another club on any sort of decent money is pretty close to zero. So there is pressure on him to move, if he is actually bothered about playing. I think the reality is, for Wells as well, we will have to pay up a proportion of his outstanding contract to get him to go.

The big question imho for the likes of Palmer and Wells (and probably Kalas too) is do you sacrifice some of next season’s wage to get a deal beyond next summer, because next summer you will be on £0 p.w.  On the flipside what is the incentive to the player too.

Lets just assume:

Wells £25k p.w - 32 in June - might someone offer him enough over a 2 or 3 (2+1???) year deal to make it worthwhile him moving on.  In pure maths would he take £15k p.w for 2 years?  He might for regular football, he might if City paid the residual £10k p.w for the rest of his contract.  We might do that if we can get a fee for him.  If someone wants him enough to offer him a couple of years they might pay a fee for him.  The other option is City renegotiate his current deal down to a lower wage.  We saw a similar(ish) scenario with Weimann.  There are financial benefits to us smoothing his amortisation out over a longer period.

Palmer £20k p.w - 26 in November - he really is at a crossroads.  I can’t imagine anyone is going to offer him more than £10k p.w…so he’s effectively sat on 2 years wages.  He just needs to decide what he wants out of football.  Because a year stagnating at City will mean next summer, he’s gonna struggle to get anything decent.  He will end up with offers like JET (comparing situation not players).  So if he really wants to keep his career going at a good level, he needs to bite the bullet.

Kalas £25k p.w - 29 in May - probably the player with a sellable quality.  Might not get £25k p.w but certainly good enough to get something decent, and the club get a good fee for him.  Either that, or he re-contracts here and smoothing his amortisation plus hopefully a reduced wage helps City’s finances.  I’m not worried what really happens with Kalas, we either sell or extend.

 

 

[TonyTonyTony]

Out of a squad of 26, even if you swap 8 players out and 8 in the majority are still here. If we move on 8 (Wells, Palmer, COD, Baker, HNM, King, Kalas and one other) most of us would be content.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Most are still contracted here, the market at this level and below is still recovering post Covid hence it stands to reason.

I also wouldn't rule out some kind of soft transfer restrictions- or perhaps slightly more than soft transfer restrictions- in the pipeline, meaning that bringing in will be quite difficult as it stands.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[cityfan1958]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The big question imho for the likes of Palmer and Wells (and probably Kalas too) is do you sacrifice some of next season’s wage to get a deal beyond next summer, because next summer you will be on £0 p.w.  On the flipside what is the incentive to the player too.

Lets just assume:

Wells £25k p.w - 32 in June - might someone offer him enough over a 2 or 3 (2+1???) year deal to make it worthwhile him moving on.  In pure maths would he take £15k p.w for 2 years?  He might for regular football, he might if City paid the residual £10k p.w for the rest of his contract.  We might do that if we can get a fee for him.  If someone wants him enough to offer him a couple of years they might pay a fee for him.  The other option is City renegotiate his current deal down to a lower wage.  We saw a similar(ish) scenario with Weimann.  There are financial benefits to us smoothing his amortisation out over a longer period.

Palmer £20k p.w - 26 in November - he really is at a crossroads.  I can’t imagine anyone is going to offer him more than £10k p.w…so he’s effectively sat on 2 years wages.  He just needs to decide what he wants out of football.  Because a year stagnating at City will mean next summer, he’s gonna struggle to get anything decent.  He will end up with offers like JET (comparing situation not players).  So if he really wants to keep his career going at a good level, he needs to bite the bullet.

Kalas £25k p.w - 29 in May - probably the player with a sellable quality.  Might not get £25k p.w but certainly good enough to get something decent, and the club get a good fee for him.  Either that, or he re-contracts here and smoothing his amortisation plus hopefully a reduced wage helps City’s finances.  I’m not worried what really happens with Kalas, we either sell or extend.

 

 

Palmer is the one that paying up a proportion of his outstanding contract is likely to be worth while.

if for example we can sign a decent right back for half of the money Palmer is on, we could pay up half of Palmers contract as a sweetener to go and have a player filling a position we need to fill, and loose the “dead shirt” we currently have. The down side being that, short term, the over all finances don’t improve.

Edited April 22, 2022 by cityfan1958
Spelling

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, cityfan1958 said:

Palmer is the one that paying up a proportion of his outstanding contract is likely to be worth while.

if for example we can sign a decent right back for half of the money Palmer is on, we could pay up half of Palmers contract as a sweetener to go and have a player filling a position we need to fill, and loose the “dead shirt” we currently have. The down side being that, short term, the over all finances don’t improve.

What we could do, we'd want fees for players of course but if final year of contract offering to pay a slug of the contract and we pay a chunk still creates a net saving for us.

That scenario would be more likely needed to fill the FFP hole I fear than to make new additions. If for example we were set to breach this upcoming season, why would the EFL let us sign anyone at all while that situation was in play? I'd have thought fill hole and then £1 in, £1 out in football expenditure. Any new signing when set to breach would only add to the size of the deficit.

OTOH, sales etc.

Illustrative example.

We're set to breach by (just say for arguments sake) £5m. We sell Massengo for £7m, that combined with wage savings for him and others and his amortisation falling off say takes it to £10m.

We can only put £5m back into the team. Amortisation, wages, agents fees etc. Whereas if no sale at all we're still set to breach by a few million, then Palmer leaving in your scenario would only take a small chunk out of that- still set to breach, then why would the EFL allow us to add someone and increase the deficit?

Edited April 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Waconda]

1 hour ago, Akira said:

Maybe in the hope that it makes a few of them think about knuckling down and doing the job they're paid to do, at an acceptable standard rather than the below par performances many of the players put in? 

You could be talking about the Manager also there.

[cidered abroad]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Most are still contracted here, the market at this level and below is still recovering post Covid hence it stands to reason.

I also wouldn't rule out some kind of soft transfer restrictions in the pipeline, meaning that bringing in will be quite difficult as it stands.

Would you please clarify or expand on what you mean.

@Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, cityfan1958 said:

Palmer is the one that paying up a proportion of his outstanding contract is likely to be worth while.

if for example we can sign a decent right back for half of the money Palmer is on, we could pay up half of Palmers contract as a sweetener to go and have a player filling a position we need to fill, and loose the “dead shirt” we currently have. The down side being that, short term, the over all finances don’t improve.

Yep, that final sentence is the killer.

As per “rumours”, both Palmer and Wells had offers in January, but loans only….and neither wanted a short term loan.  The other option is a loan for their (full) final year with someone picking up a good slug of their wages.

Its what we did with Bailey Wright and Matty Taylor.

Its not ideal, but it’s not the worst tasting shit-sandwich (not that I’d know!)

[cityfan1958]

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What we could do, we'd want fees for players of course but if final year of contract offering to pay a slug of the contract and we pay a chunk still creates a net saving for us.

That scenario would be more likely needed to fill the FFP hole I fear than to make new additions. If for example we were set to breach this upcoming season, why would the EFL let us sign anyone at all while that situation was in play? I'd have thought fill hole and then £1 in, £1 out in football expenditure. Any new signing when set to breach would only add to the size of the deficit.

OTOH, sales etc.

Illustrative example.

We're set to breach by (just say for arguments sake) £5m. We sell Massengo for £7m, that combined with wage savings for him and others and his amortisation falling off say takes it to £10m.

We can only put £5m back into the team. Amortisation, wages, agents fees etc. Whereas if no sale at all we're still set to breach by a few million, then Palmer leaving in your scenario would only take a small chunk out of that- still set to breach, then why would the EFL allow us to add someone and increase the deficit?

I was taking Palmer in isolation, because I feel the club as a whole needs him to go, even if he is not actively undermining the squad, his mere presence, imo, is. Obviously funds from other transfers or sell on clauses will make this a more or less likely.

[wayne allisons tongues]

1 hour ago, Slippin cider said:

Makes me wonder exactly what’s going on with him …NP says very little about him and he’s nowhere near the first team and on a pretty decent wage I should imagine.

Will he ever play for us again ?

Didn’t NP say he’s been injured and is starting to train again. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by wayne allisons tongues

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Didn’t NP say he’s been injured and is starting to train again. 

Didn’t NP say he’s been injured and is starting to train again. 

Yes, knee injury.

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Would you please clarify or expand on what you mean.

@Mr Popodopolous

2+2=5 I hope. Just thinking that if an FFP breach is forecast for next season (clubs put in their next 2 years FFP forecasts in March of the existing season if their losses fall between X and Y) then we might have to raise some kind of transfer profit just to bring some players in. Hope I'm wrong, but the EFL also now have the right to implement kind of pre-emptive Business Plan voted on now in order to assist a club in preventing a breach before it happens.

I am always a bit on the cautious side at times even negative about the financials so I may well be wrong.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Red-Robbo]

2 hours ago, RUSSEL85 said:

That’s quite obvious, 4-6 will go so certainly not a majority. I didn’t expect him to say anything different to be honest.

 

Precisely. 

I'd be rather surprised if any side that isn't promoted or demoted got rid of more than half of their existing squad.  

[Robbored]

How much longer has Palmer got on his contract? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, Robbored said:

How much longer has Palmer got on his contract? 

Expires next summer ie 2023.

Along with (deep breath) Bentley, Vyner, Kalas, Baker, Moore, DaSilva, Massengo, Bakinson, Wells and Martin!

Sure there will be some others I have also missed.

I've always looked ahead to summer 2023 as the big rebuild opportunity- just so long as we're still a Championship side of course!

Edited April 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Expires next summer ie 2023.

Along with Bentley, Vyner, Kalas, Baker, Moore, DaSilva, Massengo, Bakinson, Wells and Martin!

Sure there will be some others I have also missed.

I've always looked ahead to summer 2023 as the big rebuild opportunity- just so long as we're still a Championship side of course!

Yep, costs ought to be well under control for season 23/24.  If we can get through 22/23 with some momentum building, then that season might see the first “attempt” at top 6.

I liked his interview yesterday (I generally do though).  Bit more insight to what might fuel his recruitment thinking….and I don’t think it will see Pack signing (famous last words!).

[Simon bristol]

1 hour ago, cityfan1958 said:

I was taking Palmer in isolation, because I feel the club as a whole needs him to go, even if he is not actively undermining the squad, his mere presence, imo, is. Obviously funds from other transfers or sell on clauses will make this a more or less likely.

The club definitely need to let him go, but ive never heard any reports that hes a negative or disruptive influence? Him being paid 3 times semenyo for example might be a bit galling, but it doesnt really seem much of a benefit to us to give him money to leave?

i also can forsee that he still has enough of a name in football that someone in the championship, like milwall or birmingham will offer him a contract,,, and the best case scenario is that he leaves for free to one of those clubs on the same sort of deal as nagy, where we dont pay anymore out…. Thats the best part of 6 million on those 2 who were worth nothing and had negligible impact on the club….  And thats before you add in wages and other poor players who have cost money and achieved practically nothing!

[TonyTonyTony]

I wonder what KP's wage per minute on the pitch actually is? Scary

[Major Isewater]

3 hours ago, Northern Red said:

Or maybe he's being realistic?

[One Team]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, I think the OP is not really qualifying the use of the word “most”.  Most , being more than half, will still be here.  He also said there won’t be a major overhaul, so we aren’t gonna see a dozen leave for example.

 

A fair response as usual Fevs. 

My OP was a reaction to watching the press conference which didn’t align to me with what he’s been saying for months; but you make a good point on ‘most’ which in reality could just be a few. 

With time maybe he’s reached the conclusion you and others on this thread have; that as much as some of these players need to move on the facts don’t care about our feelings. 

One aspect I hope is addressed is the OOC players. Hopefully none of them are offered new contracts when we can spend that money on fresh people or indeed give young players a chance. 

[GrahamC]

8 minutes ago, One Team said:

A fair response as usual Fevs. 

My OP was a reaction to watching the press conference which didn’t align to me with what he’s been saying for months; but you make a good point on ‘most’ which in reality could just be a few. 

With time maybe he’s reached the conclusion you and others on this thread have; that as much as some of these players need to move on the facts don’t care about our feelings. 

One aspect I hope is addressed is the OOC players. Hopefully none of them are offered new contracts when we can spend that money on fresh people or indeed give young players a chance. 

None of them?

You wouldn’t offer Klose OR Cundy a deal?

Think you are in a very small minority who would let both go.

[Major Isewater]

7 minutes ago, One Team said:

A fair response as usual Fevs. 

My OP was a reaction to watching the press conference which didn’t align to me with what he’s been saying for months; but you make a good point on ‘most’ which in reality could just be a few. 

With time maybe he’s reached the conclusion you and others on this thread have; that as much as some of these players need to move on the facts don’t care about our feelings. 

One aspect I hope is addressed is the OOC players. Hopefully none of them are offered new contracts when we can spend that money on fresh people or indeed give young players a chance. 

I believe , generally,we will see an increasing  number of OOC players moving and therefore a reluctance for the majority of clubs to fork out on transfer fees. 
Players who are having to accept that the wages are going down will make up for this by not signing new contracts and pocketing a nice signing on fee as compensation.

 

[The Bard]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, that final sentence is the killer.

As per “rumours”, both Palmer and Wells had offers in January, but loans only….and neither wanted a short term loan.  The other option is a loan for their (full) final year with someone picking up a good slug of their wages.

Its what we did with Bailey Wright and Matty Taylor.

Its not ideal, but it’s not the worst tasting shit-sandwich (not that I’d know!)

Year long loan could be the answer with Palmer, though we will inevitably be paying at least half his wages.  Ha

[One Team]

6 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

None of them?

You wouldn’t offer Klose OR Cundy a deal?

Think you are in a very small minority who would let both go.

No I wouldn’t. 

[The Bard]

4 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

None of them?

You wouldn’t offer Klose OR Cundy a deal?

Think you are in a very small minority who would let both go.

The issue with Klose isn't whether we want him it's whether he wants to be here next season. Anyone who doesn't want him to stay is off their rocker. Clearly having a big influence on the younger CBs either side of him.

[GrahamC]

5 minutes ago, The Bard said:

The issue with Klose isn't whether we want him it's whether he wants to be here next season. Anyone who doesn't want him to stay is off their rocker. Clearly having a big influence on the younger CBs either side of him.

Been around far too long to ever buy the “he loves the club” stuff, but this is a bloke who didn’t have a club from August until late January & was keeping fit (& what a job he did there) by training with an U23 team in Basel.

He was prepared to come over & train with us just to get a deal until the end of the season & I remember Curtis Fleming saying how impressed he was by that, seeing his career.

Of course he could well have put himself in the frame for a better offer from elsewhere now, but I think he realises we have been good for him (& him for us) so will stay.

If he does get another better offer & move on, then fair play to him, he’s earned it.

As for the poster above who wouldn’t even offer him anything, blimey, good luck with finding a better free option than Timm Klose.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

I believe , generally,we will see an increasing  number of OOC players moving and therefore a reluctance for the majority of clubs to fork out on transfer fees. 
Players who are having to accept that the wages are going down will make up for this by not signing new contracts and pocketing a nice signing on fee as compensation.

 

You of course may be right, probably are right.  I hope that Bristol City try to work to a model that the only players we allow to go OOC are:

- players we signed for £0 in the first place

- players we signed for small fees that were:

• signed late in their career, I.e. there was never any expectation of getting a fee in future, or
• signed so long ago, we’ve more than got our money’s worth (subjective) and have spread the amortisation over several contract extensions (this could apply to larger fees - e.g. Rob Atkinson is still here in 2032 having played with distinction over 10 years)

Its a set of aspirations / guidelines that should at least be part of the case for whether to sign a player or not.

Letty Matty Taylor (£350k) go for free / OOC is very different to Famara Diedhiou (£5.3m).  I don’t ever want to see someone repeat what happened to Diedhiou.

[eardun]

3 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Absolutely.

There are some weird responses to this thread.

Last Saturday’s 18 man squad probably only included Wells as someone we would move on this summer if the circumstances were right, because bluntly we can’t really afford him, even though he’s shown himself to be a decent professional this season.

That’s 17 players who could well stay then, plus Tanner who isn’t fit at present & Pring who didn’t make the squad, that’s 19.

That’s easily the majority of the squad, even if we sold one of HNM, Scott or Semenyo to help balance the books.

Really can’t see the issue here.

Agree nothing to see here. It was just a factually accurate line from NP stating the bleeding’ obvious. 

[RobintheRed Red]

7 hours ago, Akira said:

Maybe in the hope that it makes a few of them think about knuckling down and doing the job they're paid to do, at an acceptable standard rather than the below par performances many of the players put in? 

Well they haven't knuckled down for the majority of the season .